Nelson v. Ad Astra Recovery Services, Inc.
2:19-cv-01755
D. Nev.Jan 6, 2020Background
- Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe issued an order (Jan. 6, 2020) modifying discovery-motion practice in Nelson v. Ad Astra Recovery Services, Inc. to require expedited briefing absent leave of court.
- The court emphasizes robust pre-filing conference obligations: counsel must personally engage, meaningfully discuss each disputed discovery issue, and present the merits with candor and specificity to avoid court intervention.
- Absent leave, responses to discovery motions must be filed within 4 days of service and replies within 2 days; emergency or time-sensitive disputes must follow emergency-motion procedures.
- Parties may (but are not required to) file a joint statement addressing each disputed request in detail; page limits in local rules do not apply to such joint statements but concision is required.
- If a dispute involves a non-party, the moving party must provide that non-party a copy of the order during the pre-filing conference and certify that fact in its filing.
- The order does not apply to motions seeking only discovery sanctions (pre-filing conference requirements do not apply to those motions); deadline calculations follow Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discovery motions should follow default local-rule briefing times | Nelson would prefer standard local-rule briefing to allow more time to respond | Ad Astra would argue for expedited briefing given pre-filing meet-and-confer has occurred | Court adopted expedited schedule: response within 4 days, reply within 2 days absent leave |
| Scope and rigor of pre-filing conference requirement | Nelson might argue a limited meet-and-confer suffices | Ad Astra would argue parties must fully develop positions before filing motions | Court requires personal, two-way, substantive negotiations presenting merits with candor and specificity |
| Use of joint statement for discovery disputes | Nelson could resist mandatory joint filings as burdensome | Ad Astra could support joint statements to narrow issues | Court permits (but does not require) joint statements and details what they must include if used |
| Treatment of disputes involving non-parties and sanction motions | Nelson may claim same procedures apply to non-parties and sanctions | Ad Astra may note different notice needs for non-parties and that sanctions-only motions follow different rules | Court requires non-party be given the order and certified; sanctions-only motions are excluded from pre-filing requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- F.D.I.C. v. Butcher, 116 F.R.D. 196 (E.D. Tenn. 1986) (discovery should proceed with minimal court involvement)
- In re Convergent Techs. Sec. Litig., 108 F.R.D. 328 (N.D. Cal. 1985) (judicial intervention in discovery should be limited to extraordinary situations)
- Cardoza v. Bloomin' Brands, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 3d 1137 (D. Nev. 2015) (disputes ordinarily presented only after completion of a meaningful pre-filing conference)
- ShuffleMaster, Inc. v. Progressive Games, Inc., 170 F.R.D. 166 (D. Nev. 1996) (pre-filing conference requires personal, two-way communication over each contested discovery issue)
- Nevada Power Co. v. Monsanto, 151 F.R.D. 118 (D. Nev. 1993) (informal negotiation should be treated as a substitute for judicial resolution and must be substantive)
- Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579 (D. Nev. 2013) (parties must meaningfully develop arguments in discovery disputes)
- Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Flamingo Trails No. 7 Maint. Ass'n, 316 F.R.D. 327 (D. Nev. 2016) (pre-filing conference requirements do not apply to motions seeking only discovery sanctions)